30
www.cityhallnews.com
NOVE MBE R 2008
CITY HALL
EDITORIAL For the Sake of Democracy and a Better New York, Run Anyway www.cityhallnews.com President/CEO: Tom Allon tallon@manhattanmedia.com
CFO/COO: Joanne Harras
jharras@manhattanmedia.com
Group Publisher: Alex Schweitzer aschweitzer@manhattanmedia.com
EDITORIAL Editor: Edward-Isaac Dovere eidovere@cityhallnews.com
Managing Editor: David Freedlander dfreedlander@cityhallnews.com
Associate Editor: Andrew J. Hawkins ahawkins@cityhallnews.com Reporters: Sal Gentile sgentile@cityhallnews.com Dan Rivoli drivoli@cityhallnews.com
Photography Editor: Andrew Schwartz Interns: Joshua Cinelli, Clark Merrefield ADVERTISING Associate Publishers: Jim Katocin, Seth Miller Advertising Manager: Marty Strongin Senior Account Executives: Ceil Ainsworth, Frank Legio, Monica Conde Marketing Director: Tom Kelly Marketing Coordinator: Stephanie Musso Executive Assistant of Sales: Jennie Valenti PRODUCTION Production Manager: Mark Stinson Art Director: Mitchell Hoffman Advertising Design: Heather Mulcahey Assistant Production Manager: Jessica A. Balaschak Web Design: Lesley Siegel City Hall is published monthly. Copyright © 2008, Manhattan Media, LLC Editorial (212) 894-5417 Advertising (212) 284-9715 Fax (212) 268-2935 General (212) 268-8600 79 Madison Avenue, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10016 Email: editor@cityhallnews.com City Hall is a division of Manhattan Media, LLC, publisher of The Capitol, Our Town, the West Side Spirit, Chelsea Clinton News, The Westsider, New York Press, New York Family and AVENUE magazine.
he real measure of just how deep a gash the extension of term limits left on democracy in this city will be the number of competitive races next year. If, in fact, they develop as the sleepy affairs most expect, everyone will understand how empty the rhetoric of increasing choice used to defend the extension really was. But now, though lawsuits and potential intervention by Albany still loom, the time has come to consider what comes next. And what comes next should be affirmations from all those who had been laying the groundwork to run for other offices next year that they will indeed be running, no matter what. Whatever good or bad there may be to say about them otherwise, Tony Avella and Eric Gioia deserve praise for the consistency of their conviction to run for the offices they had been aiming for already. On a basic level, theirs is the example that the rest of the expected 2009 field should follow. Some people have already decided to stay put in their current offices rather than try for something else next year, arguing that this is exactly what a sense of civic duty demands in these tough times for the city. That is a decent argument. But for those who had been seeking new positions on the Council, borough president, comptroller, public advocate or mayor with the argument that they could truly bring something new to these positions, the burden is on them to actually make the races. When better than at this moment of extreme challenges to have the kind of conversation about the inner workings of these offices
T
that can only be initiated by a lively political campaign? Those who had declared their candidacies, or all but declared their candidacies, began this process because they supposedly had positive ideas about what they could bring to the offices they were set to seek. If these were anything but convenient slogans or website banners, now is the moment to put them on the marketplace. Running primary or general election campaigns against incumbents may be difficult and even impolite, but for those who want to make the case that they were looking at the 2009 elections out of a sense of civic duty and not plain career ambition, running these campaigns is no doubt the moral and consistent thing to do. If they win, they will bring these new and better ideas into government. If they lose—provided their campaigns are serious and substantive—they will help shape the winner’s approach to governing for the better. One need only look at how much better the campaigning and policy positions of Barack Obama got as he survived the crucible of the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton and John McCain for proof of how important tough campaigns can be even for those who win overwhelmingly. This is a call to Democrats, but it is also a call to Republicans, whose performance at the polls in recent years has been ever more pathetic. While some of the blame, no doubt, goes to demographic shifts and a national party identity which is largely alien to residents of the five boroughs, if Republicans want to be taken seriously as an organization, they
need to put the time, money and effort into real campaigns for every office. That 159 of 168 local offices are held by the Democrats and that almost all of these are uncontested in November means that any reasonable person should be asking why the GOP bothers to still exist in New York. The party needs to start answering that question by running serious candidates engaged in active campaigns, not jokers who happen to petition their way onto the ballot or placeholders from the party faithful, as has too often become the case. Even in a town that is so Democratic, making those in the party work for their power will make them govern better. The primaries should not be the only elections that matter. And if they are, then the onus is on the Democrats to make the primaries real competitions, not pro forma events. In the many parts of this city where Republicans have no real hope of winning, the Democratic Party has a responsibility to encourage races among its own members, for the good of party dynamism, the democratic process, voter engagement and better results once in office. Especially at the local level, political positions should not be lifetime appointments, nor jobs held for as long as those in them feel interested in holding them. Competitive races lead to better governing, keeping incumbents on their toes and elected officials deeply in touch with the needs of their districts. And when the incumbents do not respond accordingly, there is hope even for the long-shot challengers. Just ask Marty Connor and Daniel Squadron.
New York Should Not Be Palin’ on HIV Protection for Rape Victims BY JENNIFER MERCURIO ov. Sarah Palin’s entrance into this year’s vice presidential race unleashed a flurry of news stories about her record as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, not all of them flattering. One that leapt off the page was about rape kits. According to some reports, it seems that sexual assault victims from Wasilla, during her tenure as mayor, had to pay for their own forensic exams. The story caused outrage in the victims’ rights community here in New York and across the country. How could sexual assault victims be asked to pay for the forensic medical tools used to prosecute their assailants, we questioned. How could Palin ignore the injustice of this? How could she sleep at night? In New York, we have the Forensic Payment Act which requires the state to pay for rape exams. But, before we finish congratulating ourselves, we might want to consider a recently vetoed piece of leg-
G
islation in Albany that penalizes rape victims in a way not unlike those in Wasilla during the Palin administration. The New York State bill in question would provide all victims of sexual assault with a streamlined payment plan to receive the full course of HIV PostExposure Prophylaxis (PEP), a treatment critical in helping to prevent a victim from contracting HIV after an assault. Victims today are provided with an antiHIV starter pack as part of the acute care rendered in the emergency department. In order to receive the rest of the month-long treatment, a victim has to be seen by a physician who will provide the rest of the prescription. If that prescription is to be paid for by the New York State Crime Victims Board (CVB), which compensates crime victims for costs associated with the crimes committed against them, the victim/survivor has three choices: lay out the money and be reimbursed by CVB after filling out a claim form; use private health insurance if she or he has it and then submit reimbursement forms to the CVB for
compensation, or apply for an emergency award from the CVB. But the victim/survivor must travel to a CVB office in Buffalo, Albany or Brooklyn in order to receive the award. The current system is arduous, at best, for a person of means who can lay out the money or who has health insurance. For poor and uninsured New Yorkers, it represents a roadblock to life-saving treatment. The streamlining bill passed in both the Assembly and the Senate, but on Sept. 8, the bill was vetoed by Governor Paterson. Governor Paterson’s veto message cites fiscal restraints as a reason for the veto. That’s exactly how the Wasilla Police Chief justified his decision. The Governor’s veto message reads: “It is impossible to know its precise fiscal impact, but it is clear that it would entail significant new costs that the State cannot now afford to incur. As our fiscal situation has become increasingly clear and increasingly grave, we have had to take strong measures to address it. This bill would be a step, and a large step, in the wrong direc-
C
tion. It is estimated that these new costs could reach as high as eight million dollars.” That figure is widely disputed. Most experts estimate the additional expenditure to be a third of that cost annually. Plus, the federal government reimburses 60 percent of all claims made by the CVB. So now we’re talking about a figure closer to $1.5 million for preventive care that would not only save the state from incurring much higher costs should these victims actually contract HIV, but that also would save lives. We are all aware of the historic budget restraints facing New York State. But at a likely cost of just $1.5 million annually, this bill is certainly worth another look. Otherwise, the people of Wasilla might rightly voice outrage about how sexual assault victims are treated in New York.
C
Jennifer Mercurio is a former chair of the New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault and a past president of the National Women’s Political Caucus of New York State.